~ Perspective from Vancouver

Give us transit so long as we don’t have to pay for it

Two-thirds of Metro Vancouver residents are calling for immediate transit improvements, saying better mass transit could help resolve the region’s housing affordability issues, according to a new study by Angus Reid Global. …

About 58 per cent of those questioned in the online forum say they voted no in last spring’s plebiscite, while 42 voted yes.

Post navigation

8 thoughts on “Give us transit so long as we don’t have to pay for it”

They voted against the Fat Cats, poodles on poles, cyclists, Lycra, double mocha lattes, beamers, Prius’s and Gregor’s coif. They voted against the Mayor’s Council Plan while referring to a mysterious Plan B.

We’re still waiting for Plan B. Hello Plan B, where are you? Let’s hope you show up before the Earth starts cooling.

Yup, that’s what they voted against. And it was dumb. The only questionable benefit has been the schedenfreude I feel when I get stuck in traffic.

There’s no point blaming the electorate. They were angry at elites: and rightfully so, given the world we live in. But the Yes campaign was beyond incompetent. This blog posted plenty of communication advice from successful campaigns elsewhere. It was not taken. It was as if the Biggest Coalition in B.C. History wanted to run a campaign of elites against everyone else.

The replacement of the Translink CEO (so ill-conceived it looked like an inside job) was the point when they irretrievably lost, conceding the campaign framing to the No side once and for all. But the whole business was tone-deaf. Take the awful mail-out. Here was their best chance they had to make their case to every voter: they threw it away with an insultingly technical catalogue of spending plans and an illegible schematic of bus and train routes.

Most revealing of all were the posters. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I first saw one. “How does Vancouver grow by 1 million people and still stay liveable? You vote Yes.” You! Not We! The gall! A fundamental mistake. But an honest one, I suppose. The official Yes rally I attended presented a parade of big shots and some sleek videos, making the two genuinely human speakers (the fellow who made the This Sucks video and the bus driver who told her story of passing up people on the last run of the right) seem out of place.

The Yes campaign failed to do what every advertiser knows. It gave voters nothing to identify with. There was no We in the campaign, and so there was no we in the vote. Just bitterness, which so far as I can tell will take years to dissipate.

All this says, Geof, is that the Yes side was inexperienced at building a campaign when given inadequate time to prepare for an unnecessary vote, not that they or their plan were wrong.

Being incompetent when forced to deal with outside political decisions doesn’t make them intrinsically bad people. It only reinforces the perceptions of TransLink that Christy et al want the public to have, and you will note how that political self-protection technique worked superbly.

The BC Libs have had 14 years to develop and perfect their strategies to keep organizations like TransLink and BC Ferries at arm’s length to act as shields against public anger that should rightfully be directed at the premier. How else can she force TransLink to walk the plank with a vote? Well, the sharks had their feed, didn’t they? The plebiscite would not have happened if transit was run by an elected Metro government, or by BC Transit for that matter which, to my knowledge, has never forced a vote on transit improvements on any jurisdiction ever. What makes TransLink so special?

I agree that their plan was (is) good (I really don’t care about minor details or flaws). The compromise and solidarity among (most of) the mayors was really impressive.

I think the real blame for the mess we’re in rests squarely with the Province, which will never fix the perceived problems with Translink because a flawed Translink is the perfect scapegoat. Not that it is particularly flawed, beyond the problem of democratic representation, which is important but doesn’t seem to me to have particularly affected its performance.

I also understand that the Yes campaign had very little time to prepare, and had difficulty negotiating between various interests. But I don’t think we should hesitate to criticize it. The campaign was awful. If it had been possible to predict how awful it would be, it would have been wiser not to hold the vote. (Was that what Burnaby’s mayor was thinking when he opted out?)

The alternative to criticism of the campaign is too easy: blame the public, call them victims of false consciousness, throw ones’ hands up and say that democracy doesn’t work. But technocrats have a terrible track record. I prefer flawed democracy.

I think the public had every reason to be angry at elites. I think they turned that anger on the wrong target. But I have made that mistake myself (I voted against the HST, only realizing my mistake when reflecting on the transit campaign). And their mistake is quite understandable when the Yes campaign basically did the No campaign’s job for it.

I certainly wouldn’t advocate another referendum, but in the long run I think we need public support. We need that We if we are to overcome the eternal intransigence of the Provincial government. I think we need to listen to people and be on their side. I think the failure of the Yes campaign to do that (for whatever reason) should be repudiated.

I wonder why Angus Reid Global, which is owned by Ipsos of France, did not publish this ‘study’ on its web site. We only have a couple of numbers yet no details from the results except a couple of numbers given out by the Mayors’ Council and they commissioned the study.

Is a poll now called study?

This is also one of those on-line polls where entrants can earn prizes and money.

I wouldn’t give it much weight, especially since it was released, by some wonderful coincidence, on the very same day that the province came forward with specific funding commitments and details for transit.

I suppose the only real importance is in the sound bites that get thrown out. It’s just a battle to see which can smother the other.

That “wonderful coincidence” still leaves the total short by 7%. And the big city is roasted over the coals for it — and forced to jump through hoops, do summersaults and sing for supper — while they are still shortchanged on the tax revenues taken from within its boundaries by the province and the feds. The feds have seen the patently unfair imbalance and sweetened their offerings to a more fair level. The province should do the same, or at least allow the city to capture more than the pitiful 10% of revenues it currently receives.

But that may take a massive tax revolt by the Metro which generates half of the province’s annual GDP. Now that would get attention, wouldn’t it?

What do you think would sway over to the Yes side the vast majority of the No voters in Maple Ridge, Langley, deep-Surrey, South Surrey, Delta, North Vancouver, etc., etc., that just don’t become very excited about a little extension of a subway along a small section of Kitsilano on the west side of Vancouver, 2,300 km of bike paths they never will use and a few big buses?

I don’t think it’ll be UBC and SFU academics going on about diabetes and Alzheimer’s. Especially when they are reminded that it will be they who subside each rider to tune of $1.62 a trip, as opposed to Toronto’s .78 cents.

In fact, expanded transit is nice but it actually costs more.

Another thing they might want to drop is the meme about buying a nice shiny transit system for the million new arrivals that are coming.

Charity and laying out the red carpet are very worthy endeavours but people work hard for their family, first.

Can’t Gregor lend some of his 60 odd spinners to write the script better?

Plan A was a poor plan. The funding of it was even worse. Hence a “no” vote by a wide margin.

The current new plan of raising property taxes and user fees is a tiny step in the right direction. Better would be
a) raise user fees 50% over 10 years
b) raise parking fees in residential neighborhoods (not just property taxes)
c) cut salaries, benefits and waste in the public sector
d) introduce road tolls / mobility pricing